| Literature DB >> 36016004 |
Naomasa Fukase1, Victoria R Duke1, Monica C Lin2,3, Ingrid K Stake1,4, Matthieu Huard1, Johnny Huard1, Meir T Marmor2, Michel M Maharbiz3,5,6, Nicole P Ehrhart7, Chelsea S Bahney1,2, Safa T Herfat2.
Abstract
There is an unmet need for improved, clinically relevant methods to longitudinally quantify bone healing during fracture care. Here we develop a smart bone plate to wirelessly monitor healing utilizing electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) to provide real-time data on tissue composition within the fracture callus. To validate our technology, we created a 1-mm rabbit tibial defect and fixed the bone with a standard veterinary plate modified with a custom-designed housing that included two impedance sensors capable of wireless transmission. Impedance magnitude and phase measurements were transmitted every 48 h for up to 10 weeks. Bone healing was assessed by X-ray, µCT, and histology. Our results indicated the sensors successfully incorporated into the fracture callus and did not impede repair. Electrical impedance, resistance, and reactance increased steadily from weeks 3 to 7-corresponding to the transition from hematoma to cartilage to bone within the fracture gap-then plateaued as the bone began to consolidate. These three electrical readings significantly correlated with traditional measurements of bone healing and successfully distinguished between union and not-healed fractures, with the strongest relationship found with impedance magnitude. These results suggest that our EIS smart bone plate can provide continuous and highly sensitive quantitative tissue measurements throughout the course of fracture healing to better guide personalized clinical care.Entities:
Keywords: Bluetooth transmission; bone fracture repair; electrical impedance spectroscopy; longitudinal monitoring; smart bone plate; wireless measurements
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36016004 PMCID: PMC9412277 DOI: 10.3390/s22166233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Smart sensor design and accompanying components. (A) CAD rendering of component PCBs with dimensions. (B–D) Component PCBs and (E) assembled sensors encapsulated in resin housing. (F,G) Custom 3D printed packaging.
Figure 2Experimental sensor implantation. (A,B) Surgical planning and sensor integration with (C,D) the bone fixation plate and (E) within the rabbit fracture model. (F*) System overview. * Created with BioRender.com.
Figure 3Rabbit tibiae healing by ~8 weeks with EIS smart bone plate. (A) Representative X-rays of healing weeks 2–10 weeks post-operatively. (B) Radiographic healing scores from individual animals. (C) Average radiographic healing scores over time.
Figure 4Quantitative bone mineral density (BMD) and bone volume (BV) consistently increase during bone repair. (A) BMD and (B) BV/TV measurements of individual animals at necropsy with corresponding correlation coefficients (r) and p-values (p). (C–E) Representative µCT images at 6-, 8-, and 10-week necropsy. (F–H*) Representative HBQ stained histology images at 6-, 8-, and 10-week necropsy. * Scale bars are 500 (inset) and 2500 µm (bottom).
Figure 5Normal fracture healing produces sigmoidal electrical responses at 2 kHz. (A–C) Difference in electrical measurements between final and initial recordings across all frequencies for sensor U4879 (blue). (D–F) Longitudinal electrical output at 2 kHz for sensor U4879 (blue) and U4881 (orange). (G,H) Electrical measurements across 2–99 kHz frequency sweep (colors indicated in ledged) for sensor U4879. (I) Goodness of fit (R2) to a sigmoidal curve for sensors across 2–99 kHz frequency sweep (colors indicated in ledged in G).
Figure 6Smart sensors reproduce classic X-ray and µCT measures. All sensor measurements significantly correlate to (A–C) radiographic and (D–F) µCT outcomes. (G) Spearman correlation coefficients and goodness of fit to a linear regression (R2) between each measurement. Green coloring highlights statistical significance of P < 0.05.
Figure 7Sensors distinguish between union and not-healed fractures at all healing timepoints. (A–C) Sensor measurements grouped by healing timeframe (grey = not healed; green = union). (D) Only ns (no significance) shown on graph, all other comparisons are significant (α = 0.05). Internal references are greyed out on graph, green highlight indicates healed fractures. Data analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc testing. ** = P < 0.01, *** = P < 0.005, **** = P < 0.001.
Figure 8Pictorial representation of theoretical standard, delayed, and nonunion healing curves [9].